simple-adblock is NOT the adblocking for IE you were looking for (do not install simple-adblock). Sure it does hide ads better than most IE addons, but it is sneaky-ware with less than honorable intentions.

Is this an appropriate IE plugin? Are you comfortable with it assigning you a unique id (much like chrome) and logging your username and computername? If major privacy issues are not your concern this might be the adblock plugin for you.

setting aside the evil here are the good points (which do not justify use)

supports the AdBlock Plus format (fully?)

Filter format
In your personal filter file you can add your own filter rules. For the changes to take effect, you need to open a new tab or window (note in IE 6 and IE 7 you need to open a new window)

The filter rules are identical to the format defined by adblockplus, hence you can copy your own filter list created with Adblockplus to this file. The filter format is defined in: http://adblockplus.org/en/filters

Q: Can I edit my own filters with simple adblock?
Simple Adblock is supposed to be easy for everyone to use. Therefore that is not an option, but we are working on a way to make it easy to edit filters and hide elements.

Until then we have made a temporary workaround: personal filters

yay? no.

the downside of simple-adblock: it appears to generate and log unique user ids for each install. creepy, yes? But wait there’s more stop-aidonline.dk

IE adblockers in descending order of awesomeness (ignoring all downsides)

My goal is to not-see content I do not want to see. That will not destroy an industry. I do not want to see lasciviousness, carnal concupiscence, dancing monkeys, seizure inducing flicker, or content not related to what I am seeking.

I have zero tolerance for malware launching platforms in browser, abuse of java- or javascript over riding my desired experience.

Enter CAPS: firefox Security Policies

I decide, as sole arbiter of what I will see, which features of javascript I shall allow and which features (methods?) of javascript I shall disallow globally- or on a site by site basis.

CAPS sadly is underdeveloped in firefox extensions land. There is one extension still trapped in the AMO sandbox, and there’s Controle de Scripts, but its CAPS gui leaves much to be desired. (@Wladimir: next project perhaps?)

“showing ads” is not a business model.

[think: “defective business model syndrome”]

If the content has value charge to see it. If no one wants to pay it’s not worth much. The content is clearly not compelling enough to the potential viewer.

There is no covenant between a member of the surfing public and the site. For this and other reasons there is NO theft when the user only renders content HE desires in HIS browser using HIS bandwidth. The user does have a covenant with his ISP.

There was an excellent series of posts to which I oft referred on the now defunct CastleCops forum:

‘defective business model’

[Wladimir, blog: ADP blocking] “give control back to the users”

Users always have the control. One must assent to be governed. I do not give that freely, and certainly not to the irrational (those who errantly believe adblock is illicit)

[Wladimir, blog: ADP blocking] “users can theoretically choose not to block ads on some sites”

I routinely whitelist certain open-source project I enjoy if and only if they are not displaying flash ads.

[flashstorm, topic 3907, p26161] “they are using my content in a way I did not intend it to be used”

If I buy a toaster I am not compelled to use only bread products inside it. I am free to modify it to cook fish or make popcorn. There might be restrictions on my resale. But in the content case I am neither redistributing- nor reselling.

I am free to use products in ways other than intended. Welcome to America.

[flashstorm, topic 3907, p26161] “developpers [sic] of ABP make it somehow available to webmasters a method of ‘denying’”

No, thanks, you can make it clear to your viewers and should they agree then good for the TWO of you. You want to opt-out of adblocking. I want to opt-out of viewing undesirable content. Again this is your defective business model. You are completely capable of enabling at the very least BasicAuth on your site and charging users to view your content. Why don’t you?

[flashstorm, topic 3907, p26161] “ethical problems”

Your desire to inflict use case upon me is irrational as best. I am not behaving illicitly by not kowtowing to your desires.

If however I were to crack your password table and circumvent your BasicAuth that’s another issue entirely.

Go ahead and try to block adblocking-users. You will accomplish two things: you will likely lose more viewership than you gain, AND your site will become an entertaining hobby for those who delight in circumvention for its own sake.

This takes us back to you having NOT established a contract with viewers. That you do not want to understand the fundamental nature of the web is an issue for you and your mental health provider.

meta name=“advertising” content=“ask”

Another extension will popup and scrub out the tags before ADP acts on them.. or ADP will be modified to ignore them. I certainly would modify ADP. Naturally I would not redistribute ADPnoprompt without permission.

I don’t like this already. slide-downs are already annoying. If this happens with great regularity it would be as annoying as ads themselves. I’ll need a “stop showing messages like this” option. This will leave others free to continue to tolerate invasive slide-downs if it doesn’t bother them.

I shall want fine grain control of what is to be allowed.

I certainly don’t want to allow flash ads, or third party (large scale privacy violation)

[Wladimir, blog: ADP blocking] “criteria for acceptable ads”

The objective standard is “do no harm” to the user. Further do not provide a vehicle for potential harm. The subjective standard is content I find objectionable. I find all GeoIP advertising objectionable especially those along these lines: “hookup now with someone in [your city]”.

It is not acceptable to use the underlying ad network to profile my activity across domains.

ISPs have the opportunity to make an extra few cents per user by allowing me to opt-out of location specific NetBlocks [sub delegation]. I would want to set a privacy flag with my DHCP server from the ISP to hand out an IP address that does NOT reveal my physical location [geoIP location]. This does not give me license for illicit actions but lets ME decide if I want someone to know what city I live in.. or what city block.

You want to claim you are providing a “free” service, but are frustrated when people won’t view your annoying ads. If you think you have valuable content charge for it. Why don’t you? Because you fear no one will value what you offer.

Your offering is either free or it’s not. Yes, it really is this simple. If it truly is free then you ought not complain about a users browser software or any other display by the user.

Free does not entitle you to compensation. If this is challenging I invite you to use one of the big word books on the internet: bartleby.com/61 [a dictionary].

If, on the other hand you wish compensation for your product then you can neither call your product “free” nor can you expect compensation from your users in a form they will not condone. As the power is with the buyer ultimately, you’ll shortly find that blinking, flashing objects are not desired.